Just for the record, I was not criticizing if the painting was
Tiki, just the over all concept & focus of the work
and what appears to be unintentional humor in the work
which I really like, by the way!

My criticism was referring to the conceptual content of all the elements
and if they work together as a whole (you know "Artist Talk")

This is by no way "a Tiki, or not Tiki" comment
after all it does have two Tikis in the painting, which is better then a lot
of other art that has been posted here as far as "Tiki Content"

I understand your criticisms, I just have a very different perspective of this painting. I love to put my dogs in settings which speak both to my feelings about them and to their individual personalities. The humor here is utterly and completely intentional- it is a bit subtle because that's the way I like it- I find it more interesting than humor that bonks a person over the head. The humor is probably more obvious when you see it in person, because it is large- my thirteen pound dog is almost the size of a shetland pony in the painting- he is a demi god. This one is subtle, but I have others that are not so subtle. I am now going to do something which I hope will not violate forum rules- I am going to attach a photo which has nothing to do with polynesian pop -I do so to hopefully provide a context in which this painting might be better understood. My painting of Boo will hang in the company of this one, and many others which place my dogs in historical, religious or pop cultural settings. It's my thing. [

quote]
On 2013-04-10 11:24, Atomic Tiki Punk wrote:Just for the record, I was not criticizing if the painting was
Tiki, just the over all concept & focus of the work
and what appears to be unintentional humor in the work
which I really like, by the way!

My criticism was referring to the conceptual content of all the elements
and if they work together as a whole (you know "Artist Talk")

This is by no way "a Tiki, or not Tiki" comment
after all it does have two Tikis in the painting, which is better then a lot
of other art that has been posted here as far as "Tiki Content"

GROG agree with ATP about the triptych. When GROG click on the thread and the window open and GROG see the painting, the dog just immediately looks out-of-place, or the Tikis. It's just not meshing right---doesn't have the right feel. This last painting---- god/dog works. It's making a statement/expressing an idea, showing humor, etc. The triptych, however, just looks like a dog portrait between two tiki paintings. It could be a horse portrait, a ferret, a gorilla, etc, and it would just look like an animal portrait between two tikis paintings The painting technique is awesome---very competent/skilled. Whenever GROG see the painting the Sesame Street song "one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong" pops into GROG' head. Now if, it was trying to be contrasting---where an element is put into the painting to purposely look out-of-place, like dogs playing poker--- that would work. But here, it just doesn't seem to quite work. It looks like the dog is meant to fit in with the tikis, rather than contrast with the tikis, and it doesn't quite work for GROG. It's just a really nice dog portrait between two tiki paintings.

That being said, GROG would love to see you do more tiki art, because you're a really skilled artist/painter.

The painting looks like you did it for yourself, and not to sell it. If you like it and it's what you want, then screw everybody. You're the artist--you do what you want.

Hi Grog. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, the painting is for me, painted especially to go over my dining room table. So yeah, it really doesn't matter too much to me if other folks think Boo fits in there. To me, it works. Especially within the right context- among other odd ball dog paintings.

Quote:

On 2013-04-10 13:41, GROG wrote:GROG agree with ATP about the triptych. When GROG click on the thread and the window open and GROG see the painting, the dog just immediately looks out-of-place, or the Tikis. It's just not meshing right---doesn't have the right feel. This last painting---- god/dog works. It's making a statement/expressing an idea, showing humor, etc. The triptych, however, just looks like a dog portrait between two tiki paintings. It could be a horse portrait, a ferret, a gorilla, etc, and it would just look like an animal portrait between two tikis paintings The painting technique is awesome---very competent/skilled. Whenever GROG see the painting the Sesame Street song "one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong" pops into GROG' head. Now if, it was trying to be contrasting---where an element is put into the painting to purposely look out-of-place, like dogs playing poker--- that would work. But here, it just doesn't seem to quite work. It looks like the dog is meant to fit in with the tikis, rather than contrast with the tikis, and it doesn't quite work for GROG. It's just a really nice dog portrait between two tiki paintings.

That being said, GROG would love to see you do more tiki art, because you're a really skilled artist/painter.

The painting looks like you did it for yourself, and not to sell it. If you like it and it's what you want, then screw everybody. You're the artist--you do what you want.

Hi Gwen. I love you work. The twist on Ganesh though not Tiki I would hang in my home anywhere. Thanks for sharing.
_________________"Anyone who has ever seen them is thereafter haunted as if by a feverish dream" Karl Woermann

On 2013-04-10 16:04, Atomic Tiki Punk wrote:OK so if the Greyhound is a "Demigod" during the Jurassic period
was the Greyhound then responsible for the extinction event
that killed off all the Dinosaurs?

First I have to worry if the dog was about to become a meal, but now
it looks like the pooch has committed genocide!

What does it mean?.......what....does...it...mean?

P.S. Should the Greyhound be a "DemiDog" instead of a "DemiGod"?

[ This Message was edited by: Atomic Tiki Punk 2013-04-10 16:12 ]

Boo says he is willing to claim some responsibility for the mass extinctions which occurred during the triassic period ( during which pterosaurs darkened the skies) but had no play in the jurassic die off. He was napping.